4 More Topic

Posted by sinverguenza on 11/10/2012 1:52:00 AM (view original):bro, save it for some seattle coffeehouse where everybody wears berets. you should have realized 2 things already. they are as follows:

1: you've been defeated in the debate. when you feel it's necessary to write a novel with each post, you're probably saying so little of substance that you have to drag it out for 8 years as a ploy.

2: even if you had held your own in this debate, nobody would give a damn. you're never going to convince rich people that they owe more than the 50% they're already wasting in taxes every year, just as i'm never going to convince you to get a vassectomy so that the world need not have any little bistizas guzzling anymore milk from the proverbial communal teet.

Heh.

I like this guy.

Oh, btw, I do agree with your post here...even though I seldom see berets in Seattle coffeehouses.

Four more years of the same thing is better than four years of plans with no ways to implement them. Romney would have taken office with a grand plan and no way to make it work and we'd have been far worse off than we will be now.

Posted by bistiza on 11/13/2012 8:30:00 AM (view original):Four more years of the same thing is better than four years of plans with no ways to implement them. Romney would have taken office with a grand plan and no way to make it work and we'd have been far worse off than we will be now.

I am mad we didnt win.

This isnt about that.

This is a kind of frustration that after all the work and all the money we didnt change anything.

We didnt give th house back to the Dems or give the dems a super majority in the Senate.

We didnt give the Senate to the Pubs or get rid of Obama.

How can the people look at what is going on and not swing to one side or the other.

We could be having Communist and fascist revolutions wiht the economy in this shape, and we dont change anything.

The system isn't designed for easy change. Only a third of the senate seats were up for election, the congressional districts are gerrymandered, and the incumbent president has a big advantage running for re-election.

We could be having Communist and fascist revolutions wiht the economy in this shape, and we dont change anything.

I'm not against a revolution that would change things. I don't think it should be communist or fascist, but a more socialist economy would certainly represent an improvement over what we have now, which is a system designed to allow the rich and powerful to stay that way and to convince everyone else if they work harder to keep making money for the rich then they too may have a slight chance of becoming rich so the cycle can continue.

Also, bad luck is right on the money. Just like modern American capitalism, most governmental systems are also not designed to welcome change.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):The system isn't designed for easy change. Only a third of the senate seats were up for election, the congressional districts are gerrymandered, and the incumbent president has a big advantage running for re-election.

A third of the Senate and all the House and the President were up for grabs.

The house had a pretty big margin for the Pubs. And they kept almost all of it.

Senate and Pres stayed the same.

How did both of these happen? How could people look at what was going on and not go for a change either way.

BTW, I saw that one of the Comcast CEO types was a big Obama supporter.

The Dems gained 7 or so seats in the House, DESPITE gerrymandering efforts of many Republican controlled state legislatures. Obama won fairly comfortably. And the Dems gained two seats in the Senate despite having to defend 23 vs 10 for the Rs. You can call that the status quo if you want. But it is not.